[tomder55]

The graph is also in the link provided by Emanuel in his article... or are you denying that ?

[excon]

If your death is better for the population at large than your survival, in the opinion of some bureaucrat, you don't get the care you need. THAT is what is scary.

What bothers me is why YOU are not scared of that.

Hello again, El:

You keep forgetting to talk about the elephant in the room. Doncha worry, though. That's my job...

What scares me personally, is that some insurance adjuster is going to decide that his children's private schooling is more important than my health, so I won't get the care that I need. I just bought some top notch health insurance. But, my policy is a half inch thick with teeny printing. I'm sure the printing isn't saying that I'm going to be covered... Nahhh... They could say that in a half page. I'm sure the printing is saying all the things they're NOT going to pay for. You know I'm not going to catch any of those covered diseases, don't you? Nahhh, I'm going to catch one of those listed in those 100's of pages of fine print. You know that, and I know that.

What bothers me is why YOU are not scared by that? I also wonder why you don't mention that the insurance adjuster, LIKE the bureaucrat, is rationing your health care? His motive is profit instead of health. So what?

excon

[speechlesstx]

From the article:

"Comparative effectiveness research provides information on the relative strengths and weakness of various medical interventions. Such research will give clinicians and patients valid information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system".

"The council will not recommend clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment. The council will consider the needs of populations served by federal programs and opportunities to build and expand on current investments and priorities. It will also provide input on priorities for the $400 million fund in the Recovery Act that the Secretary will allocate to advance this type of research."

Where's the scary part here?

This is where I agree with excon that Obama is an incrementalist, this is a first step. Sen John Kyl offered an amendment to the bill (which I believe was rejected) which established this board that would "ensure that nothing that we have done so far here will allow health care in the United States to be rationed by the federal government." Kyl then made the point that "if nobody is intending to do it, then there's no problem saying you can't do it." So if there is no intent to ration health care, why won't the Democrats in congress come right out in the legislation and say "you can't ration health care?"

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

You keep forgetting to talk about the elephant in the room. Doncha worry, though. That's my job....

What scares me personally, is that some insurance adjuster is going to decide that his children's private schooling is more important than my health, so I won't get the care that I need. I just bought some top notch health insurance. But, my policy is a half inch thick with teeny printing. I'm sure the printing isn't saying that I'm gonna be covered... Nahhh.... They could say that in a half page. I'm sure the printing is saying all the things they're NOT going to pay for. You know I'm not gonna catch any of those covered diseases, don't you? Nahhh, I'm gonna catch one of those listed in those 100's of pages of fine print. You know that, and I know that.

What bothers me is why YOU are not scared by that? I also wonder why you don't mention that the insurance adjuster, LIKE the bureaucrat, is rationing your health care? His motive is profit instead of health. So what?

excon

Hate to tell you this, excon, but health insurance companies don't pay their adjusters based on what they don't pay out on. That insurance adjust earns a base salary that doesn't change based on what gets paid and what doesn't.

Who's creating doomsday scenarios here.

And instead of guessing what the "teeny print" must be saying, why don't you try reading it. Then you'll know for sure and won't have to speculate about it. But for right now, all you are doing is speculating about the evils of insurance companies.

That seems to be the basis of all your arguments. You SPECULATE that $25 billion is a lot of money, but you don't really know. You speculate that the fine print is hiding information from you about what you won't be covered for, but you haven't read it and so you don't really know. You speculate that global warming is right, but you don't know the science and haven't bothered to do the research on it so you don't really know.

You are all about speculation. You can't supply useful facts, figures, statistics and historical examples, so you speculate, and you assume that nobody will notice and call you on it. I can't remember the last time you supplied a piece if hard evidence to validate your stance on any issue.

Peekaboo, I see you.

Elliot

[inthebox]

Hello Elliot:

You didn't ask me, but I didn't think you'd mind if I answered. Health care is already rationed. The wealthy get it, and the poor don't. But, if it's going to BE rationed, I'd rather the criteria be HEALTH and not PROFITS.

Can you imagine suffering from a disease that just not many people suffer from??? There IS a drug, though, that will SAVE YOUR LIFE, but because the drug companies are looking for PROFITS instead of HEALTH, they're not going to make that life saving drug for you because there's no PROFIT in it.

I'm sure you'd sacrifice your own life in the name of blind conservatism, but what if this was your child? Isn't SHE entitled to live?

excon

FYI

The poor get health care via medicaid or schip

Yes healthcare is already rationed - try getting an MRI or coronary bypass in the VA system and compare that with the private sector.

As to your accusation that big pharma does not make life saving medications due to a lack of profits? Where is your proof, show me a link, name the company and the medication.

I'll name one of many medications that is life saving and that I doubt if there is much profit in it : ASPIRIN

Remember that pharma companies usually make a diversified portfolio of medications.
For example Pfizer makes assorted classes of medications from Azithromycin, an antibiotic, to Viagra. It is in there best financial interest to KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE to purchase their products.


Now tell me one medication that the US government has made? And you expect them to be responsible for your health? Koolaid would be better :)




G&P

[NeedKarma]

Now tell me one medication that the US government has made? And you expect them to be responsible for your health?

Do you mean to tell me that you believe that in a universal healthcare system the government now takes over researching and making pharmaceuticals? Where the hell does that idea come from? You have me on the floor laughing.

[inthebox]

Who would have thought the government would own GM?

NK, name one medication produced by a government owned company?
The capitalist profit motive that so many decry is the force that makes innovation and progress possible. If the government controls healthcare and demands cost cutting, as they have from hospitals, health insurance companies, pharma companies, where do you think the money or the motive for r and d is going to come from?


G&P

[321543]

They just forget one thing. They too, will one day grow old. Then fall into there own standard.

[321543]

Excon is right . The biggest drug dealers are drug companies and Doc's . BIG business. That's the problem with the health system to begin with. Doctors charging money just to write a prescription. No wonder there are teens hooked on pharmaceutical drugs before they ever get to high school. Everyone is over medicated, takeing something.
I say NO WAY , DON'T THINK SO! FOR GET IT! Last option.

[amdeist]

OK, here is an example that you might comprehend.
Say you are a 25 year old female, not married yet and no children. You get cancer, and because it will cost 50,000 dollars to treat you it is decided that you are not worth the cost, because that 50K could be spread to 50 other people with lesser illnesses. Because of the cancer you ultimately die, thereby eliminating your genes from the gene pool and also stopping the possible spread of your defective gene that allowed you to get the cancer in the first place. Think it's not possible?
THINK AGAIN!
Any system that allows for rationing of health care is gene selection by it's very nature. Those that are "deemed" worthy get and those that are not don't.

This is not the way health care works in any other Western Nation in the world. If it was, they wouldn't waste money treating elderly, who, by the way, are the most in need of health care. And for those who don't think we have rationing today, think again. We ration based on availability. Renal Dialysis is just one example. It is getting old hearing people who have easy access to health care wanting to block those who don't. With our economy in the tank, millions more are going to be added to the 40 million already without health care access. What kind of Christian, Jew, Muslim or other denomination takes the attitude that you don't want to allow your neighbor to have access to health care? I can tell you; one that is surely going to Hell!

[ETWolverine]

This is not the way health care works in any other Western Nation in the world. If it was, they wouldn't waste money treating elderly, who, by the way, are the most in need of health care. And for those who don't think we have rationing today, think again. We ration based on availability. Renal Dialysis is just one example. It is getting old hearing people who have easy access to health care wanting to block those who don't. With our economy in the tank, millions more are going to be added to the 40 million already without health care access. What kind of Christian, Jew, Muslim or other denomination takes the attitude that you don't want to allow your neighbor to have access to health care? I can tell you; one that is surely going to Hell!

Actually, amdeist, that's EXACTLY how government-run healthcare works in EVERY nation in which it is practiced. The UK just eliminated certain breast cancer drugs from their list of approved meds because they are too expensive. 450donn was giving a specific case in the UK where a woman was denied the drugs she needs to survive. It's cheaper and easier to a) let the patient die, b) give less expensive drugs that don't work as well, and c) pay for cheaper drugs for OTHER people instead of treating this woman.

My grandfather, who was pretty much penniless, had access to renal dialysis for 5 years, three times a week. I know he did, because my mom and I took him to his dialysis treatments. The US system does NOT leave even the most indigent without health care. They may not get great INSURANCE, but they get the best care in the world. Care that is NOT available in the UK or Canada, where the system is nationalized.

Nationalizing the health care system will put "the needs of the community as a whole" over and above the needs of the patient. Obama has already said so... he's said publicly that it might be better to give end-of-life patients some pain killers to ease their pain rather than actually give them health care that "probably" won't work for them, because it's cheaper to let the patient die than to try to save them. I don't want to live in a system where the choices of whether to try to save my life are made by a government bureaucrat.

I don't want the needs of the community (as decided by a bureaucrat who has never met me and doesn't know my situation) to outweigh MY needs. COMMUNISM believes that the needs of the community are more important than the needs of the individual. I live in America, where the rights of the individual are paramount... MY right to choose what medical actions are best for me are paramount over the "needs" of the state or the community.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Actually, amdeist, that's EXACTLY how government-run healthcare works in EVERY nation in which it is practiced.

Nope. Another one of your big lies. I live in a universal health care country and that is not the case

I live in America, where the rights of the individual are paramount... MY right to choose what medical actions are best for me are paramount over the "needs" of the state or the community.

Sorry, that's wrong too. Insurance companies have control over what doctor you see or what meds you can use. They can deny your claim or reduced reimbursement and leave you bankrupt. Or may may not get insurance because of a perceived "preexisting condition", something I have never heard here in my life.

[excon]

I don't want to live in a system where the choices of whether to try to save my life are made by a government bureaucrat.

I don't want the needs of the community (as decided by a bureaucrat who has never met me and doesn't know my situation) to outweigh MY needs.

Hello again, El:

I don't know WHY you keep forgetting stuff, but it's OK. I'm here to remind you...

Interestingly, you DON'T mind an INSURANCE ADJUSTER rationing your health care. He's never met you and doesn't CARE about your situation. He's looking out for the PROFIT of his company, not your health.

Why is it cool to have HIM in the examining room with you??

Oh, I know, I know. You think he'll approve a $250,000 operation for you so he can keep you as a happy customer... Dude! Not only can you not add, you're nuts.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Nope. Another one of your big lies. I live in a universal health care country and that is not the case

The statistics coming out of your own government say otherwise. I think I'll believe the guys who actually RUN your healthcare system over you, who admit that you have little experience in it.

Sorry, that's wrong too. Insurance companies have control over what doctor you see or what meds you can use. They can deny your claim or reduced reimbursement and leave you bankrupt. Or may may not get insurance because of a perceived "preexisting condition", something I have never heard here in my life.

All true. But the difference between a government run health system and a private insurance health system is that if I don't like the controls put on me by the insurance company, I can leave the system and buy different insurance OR pay out of pocket. I have the choice to see whatever doctor I want, obtain whatever meds I want, and if the insurance doesn't pay for it, I can CHOOSE to pay for it myself. In fact, I happen to do that right now with a drug I'm taking for sleep apnea. My insurance doesn't cover it, so I'm paying for it out of pocket. THAT is MY CHOICE. In a government run healthcare system, you don't get that choice. If it ain't covered, you do without... or die.

The difference is CHOICE. I have it in my system, you don't in yours, and I don't want to give it up.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

I dunno WHY you keep forgetting stuff, but it's ok. I'm here to remind you....

Interestingly, you DON'T mind an INSURANCE ADJUSTER rationing your health care. He's never met you and doesn't CARE about your situation. He's looking out for the PROFIT of his company, not your health.

Why is it cool to have HIM in the examining room with you????

Oh, I know, I know. You think he'll approve a $250,000 operation for you so he can keep you as a happy customer.... Dude! Not only can you not add, you're nuts.

excon

Again, excon, if the insurance adjuster decides to deny my claim, I still have the choice to obtain the healthcare by paying out of pocket or by buying a different insurance plan. I can go outside the plan for my coverage. In a government-run system, you can't do that.

Therefore, there is no rationing in the private system. They can deny me all they want and I can STILL get what I want. They can't stop me from obtaining something I pay for myself or something a different insurance company is willing to pay for.

But in a nationalized system, if the government denies it, you do without.

You keep forgetting that little part about being able to pay out of pocket. That's where the "free choice" part comes into play. I don't know why going outside the system is something you forget so often when talking about health care, since you seem to be in favor of it in so many other areas.

I also wonder why you, who think the government should stay out of the bedroom and should stay out of the woman's healthcare when it comes to abortions have no problem with them being in control of every other part of your healthcare. Your positions are self-contradictory.

Elliot

[excon]

The difference is CHOICE. I have it in my system, you don't in yours, and I don't want to give it up.

Hello again, El:

Choice?? You think you have CHOICE?? Dude! Let me ask you this. Lets say that you're covered by your employer. You happen to have a preexisting ailment and you have to wait a year before your insurance company will pay for those treatments...

And, lets say that those treatments are pretty expensive (and you've already held off for a year, which I don't think did you much good), but since you're NOW covered,

(1) do you really have a choice about leaving your job?

(2) given your condition, can you actually CHOOSE who you buy insurance from, or will the insurance companies be doing the choosing?

The answers are obvious - but I'll bet not to you. Lest you say that the circumstances above are RARE, I'd say you really ARE nuts. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that YOU find yourself in that situation - yet you still shill for the insurance companies.

excon

[excon]

Again, excon, if the insurance adjuster decides to deny my claim, I still have the choice to obtain the healthcare by paying out of pocket or by buying a different insurance plan. I can go outside the plan for my coverage. In a government-run system, you can't do that.

Hello again, El:

Let me see if I get this right. You need a very expensive operation and your adjuster turns you down, yet you think you can go somewhere else?? You think you still have choices?? You think some other insurance company is going to sell you insurance and then PAY for your operation??

Do you really believe that stuff?? Really?? Wow!

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Choice??? You think you have CHOICE????? Dude! Lemme ask you this. Lets say that you're covered by your employer. You happen to have a preexisting ailment and you have to wait a year before your insurance company will pay for those treatments....

And, lets say that those treatments are pretty expensive (and you've already held off for a year, which I don't think did you much good), but since you're NOW covered,

(1) do you really have a choice about leaving your job?

(2) given your condition, can you actually CHOOSE who you buy insurance from, or will the companies be doing the choosing?

The answers are obvious - but I'll bet not to you. Lest you say that the circumstances above are RARE, I'd say you really ARE nuts. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that YOU find yourself in that situation - yet you still shill for the insurance companies.

excon

First of all, you make it very clear that you know nothing about health insurance law.

If I am covered by an insurance plan now, I cannot be denied by a new insurance plan because of a "pre-existing condition". That's why COBRA exists... to make sure that there is continuity of care even if you lose a job and have a pre-existing condition. Therefore, as long as there is no break in coverage for more than 30 days (I think, it might actually be 90 days), I can switch insurance without any sort of pre-existing condition penalty.

Second, If the insurance company denied my treatments for a year, I would have the treatments anyway, and then fight with the insurance company over it after the fact. I've done it before. Want to know a secret about insurance companies? They are more likely to pay for something after the procedure is already done (on an "emergency" basis) than if you ask them beforehand.

So the answers you assumed to be the correct answers to your questions that seem so obvious to you are obviously wrong.

Now... let's take the same scenario in a government-run health system. The government insurance bureaucrat has been pushing off your treatment for a year now. He is telling you that you need to wait another year before you can get it. Since doctors are all in the employ of the government, and there are no doctors to perform the procedure unless the government authorizes it, what are your options?

1) Die
2) Expire
3) Drop dead
4) Kick the bucket
5) All of the above

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Actually excon he's spouting the republican mantra: "I got mine, screw the rest" - basically saying that he can easily pay for the overpriced procedure from his own pocket.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Lemme see if I get this right. You need a very expensive operation and your adjuster turns you down, yet you think you can go somewhere else???? You think you still have choices??? You think some other insurance company is going to sell you insurance and then PAY for your operation???

Do you really believe that stuff??? Really????? Wow!

excon

Yes I do. I've actually DONE it. So have millions of other Americans.